Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting
Do you wish to request the book?
The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting
2014
Overview
Cherubini et al. (above) question the reliability of identifying annual growth increments in olive trees, and therefore voice caution against the result of the wiggle-match of the four sections of a branch of an olive tree to the 14C calibration curve. Friedrich et al. (2006) were well aware of the problematic density structure of olive trees, and therefore assigned rather wide error margins of up to 50 per cent to the ring count. This still resulted in a late seventeenth century BC youngest date for the modelled age range of the outermost section of wood (95.4% probability). One can even remove any constraint from ring counting altogether and model the four radial sections as a simple ordered sequence, in which only the relative position is used as prior information, in other words that outer sections are younger than inner ones in a radial section.
